The official blog of a Speculative Mystery writer, reader, and sometimes editor…

Deriving ‘rules’ from what we’re NOT about…

One of the first posts I wrote for this blog dealt with Speculative Mystery rules and focused on the rules for the Mystery genre developed by the Detection Club. Beyond those rules, a rival set was developed and outlined by S.S. Van Dyne (a.k.a. Willard Huntington Wright) in an article called Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories in 1928.

Of the twenty rules, many are reasonable, others seem outdated, while still others may serve as so-called ‘anti-rules’ for Speculative Mystery fiction. Two rules come to mind in this regard:

Rule 8: The problem of the crime must be solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, Ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic séances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.

Rule 14: The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.

Of course, Speculative Mystery is a different genre than mundane Mystery. Secondly, Van Dyne is referring to Crime / Detective fiction only. Also, as the writing guidelines of Speculative Mystery Iconoclast state, our conception of Mystery is not limited to the Crime genre.

Therefore, we reject half of Rule 8 – the half pertaining to strictly naturalistic means. However, we agree that the reader should have an opportunity to match wits with the detective or hero protagonist (at least to some degree).

Where Speculative Mystery is concerned, Rule 14 should be rejected for the most part. However, just because imaginative and speculative elements are introduced, it doesn’t preclude any rationality or scientific grounding from being applied to detection.

If Speculative Mystery Iconoclast were to compose rules of its own, said rules would read something like this:

The problem of the crime may be solved by any means necessary. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, Ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic séances, crystal-gazing, and the like, may be used. However, these methods are best when used in original, entertaining ways and where possible to only illuminate part of the mystery. The protagonist hero should consider the above devices as ‘sources of information’ and not a replacement for detection.

The method of crime (or oddity), and the means of detecting it, may be either rational, wholly speculative, or both. Speculative elements from Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horroroften posses an internal logic that is analogous to rational science. This internal logic (the nuts and bolts of how these elements work) is governed by laws created by writer. However, even if they didn’t, it might be entertaining to see these collide with logical detection methods employed by police officers, private eyes, and sleuths both amateur and professional.